16 Years for Espionage, Life in Jail for Whistleblowing

Spc. William Millay, a 25-year-old military policeman, was sentenced yesterday
to 19 years in jail, a sentence reduced to 16 years after a plea deal, minus
time served, for attempting to commit espionage and for illegally communicating
"unclassified national defense information that could be used to the advantage
of a foreign nation," according to an
Army press release.

The prosecution of Spc. Millay is strikingly lenient relative to that of Pfc.
Bradley Manning, 25-year-old intelligence analyst on trial for passing documents
to WikiLeaks. Manning sought to expose documents
revealing crimes, abuse, and corruption to the American people, through WikiLeaks,
and he faces a potential life sentence. The government charges him with Espionage
and with ‘Aiding the Enemy.’

Millay "admitted to trying to pass on classified information to someone
he believed was a Russian agent," according to Reuters’
report. An FBI agent said, "Millay betrayed his nation’s trust by attempting
to sell classified national defense information for profit to a foreign nation."

Contrast that motive with Bradley Manning’s. In chat
logs with government informant Adrian Lamo, Manning hypothesized, "what
if i were someone more malicious…i could’ve sold to russia or china, and made
bank?"

"Why didn’t you?" Lamo asked.

"[B]ecause it’s public data," he said. "[I]t belongs in the
public domain…information should be free…because another state would just take
advantage of the information… try and get some edge…if its out in the open…
it should be a public good."

Manning expounded on his reasons for passing to WikiLeaks hundreds of thousands
of documents chronicling U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and U.S. diplomacy
worldwide, in a statement
earlier this year,

I believed that if the general public, especially the American public, had
access to the information contained within the [Iraq and Afghan War Logs] this
could spark a domestic debate on the role of the military and our foreign policy
in general as well as it related to Iraq and Afghanistan.

That statement accompanied a guilty plea to lesser offenses, including communicating
information to someone not entitled to receive it. That plea could have put
Manning in jail for up to twenty years. But that wasn’t sufficient for military
prosecutors, who immediately succeeded that statement with the announcement
that they’ll continue to pursue all 22 charges against Manning, seeking life
in jail without parole.

The military’s message is clear: Admit to illegally communicating national
defense information for profit, and you’ll get a plea deal and 16 years in jail.
Admit to making information publicly available to expose abuse, and the government
will refuse your plea and seek a life sentence.

This is but one in a long line of courts-martial that highlight the egregious
prosecutorial overreach in Bradley Manning’s case. Last year, we
documented the trials of the perpetrators of the Haditha massacre in Iraq
and of the Kill Team in Afghanistan – those soldiers were freed and made eligible
for parole within ten years, respectively.

But they’ve thrown the book at Manning, and then some. In addition to facing
a life sentence, Manning has endured nearly a year of solitary confinement,
nearly three years of pretrial detention, and a secretive trial designed to
minimize media coverage.

We do not ask that Spc. Millay be sentenced to life in prison as well – rather,
we should look to the leniency awarded him and to those who’ve committed far
worse crimes to understand how extreme the military’s case against Manning really
is. The government wants to cage for life someone who should instead be thanked,
freed, and rewarded for his contribution to an informed American democracy.

Author: Nathan Fuller

So the American people are more dangerous to our government than a foreign nation is. This should not be surprising. The thing all governments fear more than anything is their own people. Once they get out of control, all is lost.

Could we also include a picture of the soldier they are discussing rather than PFC Manning?

Although these are both courts-martials concerning unauthorized release of classified or controlled defense information, the situations are very different. The MP only attempted to deal with a person he thought was a Russian operative, while Manning actually released several hundred thousands of documents to WikiLeaks.

mstrdiver

Manning was charged and is being tried under existing laws. Until they or the Uniformed Code of Military Justice are changed, those are the rules under which he knew he was operating. We can also argue whether the documents and cables were over-classified until we are blue in the face, but it wasn't Manning's job to review classifications, etc. His job was to analize it for tactical and strategic trends and make that information available to the commander and staff making decisions.

What is similar in these trials, is they were both willing to violate their sworn oaths to protect and defend against all enemies foreign and domestic. Manning has pled guilty to ten charges and the prosecutions appears ready to proceed to trial on the other charges. They should both be in prison… the only discussion should be now is for how long a time period.

mstrdiver

Motives really don't matter during trial but can be important during sentencing and commanders up the chain can also consider the sentencing and motives once they review the final courts-martial record and can either lighten or allow the sentence to stand. Commanders can lessen punishment but they cannot increase it. That will be the best Manning or Milay can hope for as these actions progress.

Bob D

Ever heard of jury nullification? You can argue it is wrong but why was it built into the system? Our founders wanted the people to have the final judgement. Unfortunately it is inconceivable in a military "trial". And what a prison system we have sown. Here in the land of the free we are #1 in percapita people in jail percentage. And that includes all the 3rd world countries, even north Korea, where our news media tells us Kim Jung Un has gone wild imprisoning dissenters.

death4mstrdiver

you're a royal moron

leighjay

This article makes it quite clear that if Manning had sold the information to another country he would have been in less trouble. What the state hates is a whistle-blowers. When a solider takes his oath his first responsibility under it is to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; and bear true faith and allegiance to the same". When our government, which represents us, does not follow the law it needs to be exposed so that the situation can be corrected. The response to Manning should have been 'how did our policies get so out of hand', not "how dare anyone expose our misdeeds'. The only thing sadder is that there are still people out there who say that motive doesn't matter and the law is the law. I guess these are the people who after reading the "Merchant of Venice" were in favor of the "pound of flesh" being extracted even if blood was spilled.